Malta found guilty of bird trapping

The European Court of Justice has ruled that Malta was guilty of infringing the European Birds Directive when it allowed bird trapping to resume in 2014, stating that by allowing the trapping of seven species of finches, Malta has failed to fulfill its obligations under EU law.

Delivered by the European Court of Justice as the final stage of the infringement case by the European Commission against Malta (as case C-557/15 'European Commission vs Republic of Malta'), the verdict is clear and unequivocal, leaving no room for interpretation. BirdLife Malta has insisted that in the light of this judgement, its government should never open the trapping season for finches again and should repeal the relevant framework law with immediate effect.

A Common Linnet in a Maltese trapper's cage (BirdLife Malta).

Now the Maltese government faces the delicate task of enforcing the European Court's decision, BirdLife Malta is ready to assist in implementing the verdict, providing advice based on scientific facts, conservation values and full interpretation of the EU Birds Directive.

The verdict, delivered in Luxembourg, found Malta guilty on four main counts and defeated all arguments presented by the Maltese government, which were mainly:

1. That there are no other satisfactory solutions: on the contrary, the court ruled that Malta did not even consider any other alternatives before authorising trapping, and so failed to show that there was no other satisfactory solution;
2. That trapping is carried out in small numbers: the Court concluded that the numbers captured in Malta do not constitute a sustainable practice in relation to the birds that migrate over Malta from Europe;
3. That trapping in Malta falls within the concept of 'judicious use' and is selective: the court noted that trapping in Malta is done with massive 'clap-nets', is non-selective (that is, it captures not just finches but also other fauna) and does not allow the control of small numbers. In view of this, the court concluded that the recreational trapping of birds cannot be considered as 'judicious use' of them;
4. That trapping is carried out under strict enforcement: the court was not convinced by the enforcement efforts carried out by the Maltese authorities nor by the system adopted by the Wild Birds Regulation Unit (WBRU) to declare the finches caught. It noted that only 23 per cent of trappers have been subject to individual checks, which it viewed as inadequate, and also added that evidence shows that trapping in Natura 2000 sites has been rather frequent.

Trapping in action on Malta (BirdLife Malta).

With this decision, the negative impacts of the practice of trapping should be eliminated, with the verdict effectively translating into a number of benefits for nature. The first main positive impact will be that large swathes of land in the Maltese Islands which in the past years were authorised for trapping by the Wild Birds Regulation Unit (WBRU), should become inactive, allowing hectares of cleared vegetation to recover.

The majority of these trapping sites are on public land situated in Natura 2000 sites, which should be given special importance due to their ecological importance. Huge swathes of garigue (a kind of Mediterranean scrubland) in these sites have been destroyed over the past years, to make way for nets set up for trapping purposes. The current estimate of the area of trapping sites cleared every year is equivalent to that of 43 football pitches. Once the trapping season is permanently closed, police should also find it easier to enforce the law and stop those who occupy unregistered land to trap.

Another positive impact of the outcome of the European Court of Justice verdict will be on other wildlife that end up in the thousands of trapping nets which are left in the countryside, besides the birds themselves. With the end of trapping, nets will cease to be left unattended, resulting in a death trap to other animals, including different bird species, hedgehogs and reptiles.

Furthermore, the decision will also have an impact on the illegal trade of finches to be used as live decoys to attract other finches during the open season. All this will be brought to an end, since the demand for caged finches will cease to exist. Most of these consignments consisted of finches which were being illegally trapped in Italy and Sicily, and smuggled every autumn into Malta to be sold in markets.

Trapping fuels illegal wildlife trade (BirdLife Malta).

The verdict, which cannot be appealed, is binding and Malta is obliged to abide by its conclusions. Although Malta was ordered to pay all the court expenses related to the case, it will not incur any further fines if it abides by the ruling.

The court case was initiated by the European Commission in October 2015 after the Maltese Government ignored a number of official warnings from the European Union which led to the Commission taking Malta to the ECJ. This followed the reintroduction of a trapping season a year earlier despite the fact that in 2004, when Malta joined the EU, the Government had agreed to gradually phase out trapping for finches over a five-year period leading up to 2009. This was one of the conditions of the Accession Treaty. From 2014 onwards, in the face of several formal warnings and eventually legal action at the ECJ, the Maltese Government continued to open a trapping hunting season for seven species of finch every year, even up to last October.

In July 2017, ECJ Advocate General Eleanor V E Sharpston delivered a scathing opinion during the court case, denouncing finch trapping in Malta and clearly declaring that the country had no cause to trap birds, while simultaneously questioning the level of enforcement and supervision. Her recommendations were, as expected, adopted by the court in its final verdict.

Even Malta's Attorney General had advised the Maltese government not to press ahead and open a trapping season, and in 2014 had warned it that there was no justification for finch trapping. Despite the advice that the derogation from the European Birds Directive ran counter to EU law and that Malta stood no chance to successfully defend it in court, the government ignored its own Attorney General and pressed ahead.

The final verdict, which complements the ECJ Advocate General's Opinion and the Maltese Attorney General's advice, contests the methodology used by Malta as one which goes against the European Directive – and this could be an indirect message to the government to halt the trapping season for European Golden Plover and Song Thrush as well, since the methods applied in this case are the same as those applied to capture finches.

Trapping for these two bird species is also subject to infringement procedures against Malta on an EU level, and this could lead to Malta being taken to court again. The conclusions of the verdict stopping Malta from opening a finch-trapping season apply to any other wild bird species, so it is expected thatr government should seriously consider stopping trapping altogether.

BirdLife Malta has now called on Malta to honour the ECJ verdict and repeal framework laws which conflict with the principles of the EU's Birds Directive. The organisation also reiterated that this verdict should be considered as a clear and unequivocal case that the European Commission stands strong in the face of unsustainable and damaging environmental practices like trapping, which were permitted for political expediency against scientific and legal advice from Malta's own Attorney General.